The ugly duckling

During my squash match last weekend, I got into a conversation with my opponent about things we disliked about our schools. She thought about it for a moment. Then, she looked me in the eyes and said, firmly, “Judgment.”

We live in a society of judgment. From the reels we watch to the moment someone pronounces a word slightly differently, our lives are plagued by constant evaluation. And while judgment once stemmed from biological necessity, much judgment in the modern day is superfluous and does more harm than good. There is no modern risk of being kicked out of the tribe or fed to the wolves for saying something unconventional, but the social consequences frequently feel just as severe. So why do we still love to judge?

Whenever I judge someone, I feel a sense of pleasure in a malevolent way. I feel like a duck laughing at the ugly duckling. Malicious gratification seems the simple explanation for why we judge. Does that make it permissible?

Kantianism, aptly named after philosopher Immanuel Kant, evaluates an action based on the intention behind it. Kant loved the Good Will – the only thing, he said, that was good intrinsically. If my intention behind judging is merely to make myself feel good, that doesn’t seem compatible at all with the Good Will by Kant’s definition; this intention has no regard for the receiver of judgment. Under Kantianism, most judgments are unacceptable.

Interestingly, though, I think that many of us are unconscious of this intention. Just like a child who doesn’t choose to feel happy after eating chocolate, we feel satisfaction after judgment, unconsciously reinforcing the feedback loop. But this does not excuse us. At some point, we learn that eating too much chocolate is detrimental to our health. In the same way, we learn that judgment is detrimental to our - and especially others’-  well-being.

Another reason we may not feel like judgment is such a bad thing is that we’re just expressing our opinion. No one else has to accept or listen to our judgment. However, this view undermines the effects of judgment on the receiver.

A few months ago, I read an excerpt from Consider the Lobster by William Foster Wallace. In questioning how a lobster’s suffering should be quantified, Wallace makes a distinction between pain as a neurological concept and suffering, which involves the response of the victim. I think looking at the consequences of actions through suffering is a good way to determine whether or not an action should be performed. Though a judgment might not intend to cause pain, it could still cause hurt. If we agree that actions that cause suffering should not be performed, then judgment that has the potential to cause suffering is impermissible.

There are many ways to combat the ugly aspects of judgment while also freely expressing your opinions. One way is to frame personal opinions not as judgments but simply as opinions. Take “me personally,” for example. Both an obnoxious tautology and a Gen Z favorite, this term restates an opinion to emphasize its subjectivity, making it seem less judgmental. However, even turns of phrase like these can hurt when the judgment is negative. In that case, the prospect of spreading positive opinions and lessening negative judgments seems like a panacea.

More compliments in the world would do a great deal in terms of reducing unnecessary suffering, no matter how small those individual incidents may be. After all, positive judgments make us feel good too – so why not choose the healthier brand of chocolate? You might even get a spectral nod from Kant